The costs of trans visibility
Yesterday, Dylan Mulvaney broke her silence: https://www.tiktok.com/@dylanmulvaney/vi....
For context, this is a trans influencer who built a 10 million strong following on TikTok. She took a brand deal with budweiser to post an ad on an instagram, and the anti-trans right went absolutely ballistic, calling for a boycott, condemning the company, and to some perhaps unknowable degree it influenced that Budweiser sales dropped by a 1/4 and
. Dylan speaks more personally about the effect of the hatred on her.
What strikes me about this story is that it is just about visibility. This isn't inclusion in sports or gender-affirming care for minors, it was just that a trans person was visible. This wasn't even visibility in a TV commerical that a poor right-winger is forced to see, it was an ad on her own instagram page. We're all in our own social media algorithm influenced bubbles, but from my vantage point it really has seemed that in the last year or so things have just gotten worse for trans people and the backlash to even minor visibility is growing.
We need to do better.
Ok. This is getting off track again. I will post enhanced posting guidelines concerning transgender topics in a few hours. Until then I am closing this thread.
in b4 the lock
Having more than one trans thread seems obsessive. While there is discussion to be had imo, most of the news surrounding trans issues is for lucrative purposes because it's a topic that rustles peoples jimmies the most and brings in gobs of money for the businesses. They would love for these issues to never end despite trans people being a tiny minority that rarely affects the lives of anyone else.
Having more than one trans thread seems obsessive. While there is discussion to be had imo, most of the news surrounding trans issues is for lucrative purposes because it's a topic that rustles peoples jimmies the most and brings in gobs of money for the businesses. They would love for these issues to never end despite trans people being a tiny minority that rarely affects the lives of anyone else.
The trans issue is where the evil of identity politics gets exposed. Some can see it now, more will see it in the future.
OK. A few things.
I moved the last several posts about moderation to the mod thread. The discussion is fine but it goes back to some confusion as to what is and isn't allowed irt posting on transgender issue. But it's broader than the topic of this thread so let's continue the discussion in the mod thread b
I deleted some posts where a poster made unacceptable insults. If a response included the deleted post as a quote it was deleted also. Otherwise it's as if the deleted post were never deleted at all.
Sometimes a mod will leave a post up even if it led to a ban so others can see what transpired. I do that occasionally if there was something unusual that warrants an explanation. Otherwise I usually delete them though. Each mod has their own feel for that. It's a big gray area anyway. I may delete a post one time and leave a similar post up another time.
We have a button we use for spammers and serial trollers who keep coming back under new names. This button bans the poster and deletes every post he posted. So there may be cases where a non offending posts by that person gets deleted as well. That's what happens when you get nuked.
Or to use a Victor analogy we throw the baby out with the bath water. 😉
A brief history of the lobotomy - let's see if there's any parallels
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...
people read about it in the news and say "oh wow, what an amazing thing, perhaps i should tell my doctor to do this to my wife/daughter/myself because I love them so much and the result of not doing this could be they kill themselves"
It has been proposed that biased popular press
coverage was one factor which stimulated interest in lobotomy, thus contributing to its widespread adoption. Valenstein (1986), for example, indicated, ‘it was... generally known that
many patients were referred . . . as a result of all
the publicity’ (p. 160). In addition, there are
some specific examples of anecdotal reports that
popular press articles prompted persons in the
general public to consider lobotomy as a treatment option for themselves or loved ones. One
man wrote a story about seeking treatment with
lobotomy after his wife had read about the procedure in the popular press (Dannecker, 1942).
Crossley (1993) cited an example of one family
who wrote to the Medical Superintendent of the
North Wales Hospital:
Recent reports in the press have encouraged
us to hope that at last a treatment has been
found giving a fair chance of recovery in
schizophrenia. Naturally we are anxious to learn your opinion with regard to the case of
my brother. (p. 561)
doctors say sure why not, let's do it, there's a bunch of stuff out there written by other doctors that say this is the bee knees (trying to use lingo of the time for good posting)
we all know this to be a known phenomena that patients solicitiing doctors with treatment options is very effective at steering the treatment in that direction - just look at how half our tv ads are for now for prescription drugs
how did we get here though? what caused everyone to suddenly come out a lobotomy male and lobotomy female? well, all it took was one guy who was well connected with the popular media, all this despite that at that very time his methods were not approved because we didn't yet know the long term effect
Much of the press interest in lobotomy was due
to Walter Freeman, who cultivated relationships
with the writers of prominent newspapers and
magazines in order to promote his technique. It
is important to note that Freeman vigorously
publicized lobotomy before well-controlled research had been conducted, and before information was known about long-term effects. In fact,
references were made in scientific journals to
the advertising of lobotomy in the popular press
(e.g., Atkin, 1946), and generally Freeman’s
behavior was not sanctioned by others in the
medical community.
as late as 1941, the medical community was largely still against the lobotomy because the results were inconclusive and we didn't yet know the long term effect
TThe 1941 American Medical
Association panel also issued a warning about
several negative effects on personality including
apathy, inappropriate social behavior, and lack
of initiative (i.e., the frontal lobe syndrome).
Therefore, negative information about lobotomy
was available in the early years of press coverage
so why is the paper talking about this?
The goal of this paper is to review the portrayal of lobotomy in magazine and newspaper
articles from 1935 to 1960, in an effort to assess
if biased popular press reporting may have contributed to the use of lobotomy
Conclusion
Both the quantitative and qualitative analyses
support the conclusion that early popular press
articles on lobotomy were positively biased. The quantitative analysis indicated that the average
tone of articles remained positive until the
1950s, the number of benefits of lobotomy listed
per article was highest in the early years, and the
number of negative side effects listed per article
started low in number and increased with time
(at least until the mid-1950s). In addition, the
qualitative analysis uncovered many instances
of misrepresentation and sensationalized reporting in the early years. The portrayals of lobotomy remained positive despite the availability of
opposing viewpoints in the medical community,
which provided a basis for balanced coverage.
Although early publications were biased with
positive portrayals, the reporting styles became
increasingly balanced, and eventually negatively
valanced, through time. These findings are consistent with observations presented by
Valenstein (1986), and lend further support to
the theory that early uncritical press coverage
may have been one factor in the rapid acceptance and widespread use of lobotomy
Importantly
However, as happened in the case of
lobotomy, competition in the media to break
dramatic stories can combine with fame-seeking
by persons in the medical community to create a
symbiotic relationship which serves the media
and the physicians, but not necessarily the public interest. This is a situation where human
emotion undermines the foundation of the scientific process leading to a rush to press without
proper justification, and stimulating public interest, without adequate information.
and in the end, what was the real reason for the lobotomy, by the time we realized how horrific how it:
Gumpert (1948) quoted one doctor, ‘the operation may produce a human vegetable’, and this
doctor also referred to lobotomy as ‘rape of the
soul’
but 4 years later we were just getting started as that freeman fella did a country wide tour visiting hospital upon hospital to perform en masse operations and teach his technique
why were they now doing it knowing it wasn't treating the patient? because it'd become an institutional benefit
Transorbital lobotomy also gained favor in
institutional settings as a tool to settle difficult
patients and to empty overcrowded state hospitals. An article published in Newsweek reported,
‘the operation had made the mental patients . . .
much easier to care for in the institutions’ (Surgery for Insanity, 1952, p. 100). Another article
began, ‘a brain operation so simple that 15 can
be done in one and one-half hours may help to
clear the ‘‘back’’ wards of our mental hospitals’’’ (Ice Pick Operation, 1950, p. 24). The
New York Times reported an article under the
headline ‘‘‘Ice pick’’ surgery is tried en masse:
West Virginia conducts tests of brain operation
to bar impulses to misbehave’ (1952, p. 61). The
article described how within weeks 228 lobotomies were performed by Walter Freeman.
In fact, Freeman was on a crusade, traveling across
the country to hospitals to perform operations
and teach his technique. It is because of Freeman’s promotion of transorbital lobotomy, in
part waged through the popular press, that
Valenstein (1986) concluded, ‘virtually all of
the transorbital lobotomies in the United States
can be traced to the influence of one man – Walter Freeman’ (p. 229)
yup, no parallels at all - in fact the only reason why we stopped giving lobotomies was not because we finally understood them to be horrific (we long understood that, but just didn't care), but rather because we found a way to handle those difficult mental health patients with drugs
The introduction of Chlorpromazine in 1954
provided a noninvasive alternative treatment for
severe mental illness. Drug therapy became the
new hope for a desperate public, and lobotomy,
as well as other somatic therapies (e.g., insulin
coma), rapidly lost favor. There were only a few
popular press articles published on lobotomy
during this period.
yup, no parallels whatsoever
trans people still killing themselves at the same rate post transition
we still have yet to see the long term effects
many already deeply regret the decision
it's a big business where the surgeries can go upwards of 100k and the hormone therapy itself is thousands of dollars a year depending on the specific cocktail and
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2015/study-...
Johns Hopkins says that it will cost is:
In the first five years, the researchers found, providing health care for transgender people cost between $34,000 and $43,000 per year of quality of life; after 10 years, the cost dropped to between $7,000 and $10,000 per year of quality of life.
just imagine how many more lobotomies would have happened if anyone speaking out against them was labeled a hateful and disgusting bigot
A brief history of the lobotomy - let's see if there's any parallels
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...
people read about it in the news and say "oh wow, what an amazing thing, perhaps i should tell my doctor to do this to my wife/daughter/myself because I love them so much and the result of not doing this could be they kill themselves"
doctors say sure why not, let's do it, t
And what, exactly, is this supposed to be a parallel with as it relates to things allowed or not allowed to be discussed in this forum?
what aspects were unclear to you?
And what, exactly, is this supposed to be a parallel with as it relates to things allowed or not allowed to be discussed in this forum?
Just what I asked. What is the procedure you are equating with the lobotomy that you believe you are not allowed to discuss here?
He clearly means the sex/gender change procedures.
I think so, but I'd like to hear it from him. Also, what specifically is he comparing to a lobotomy? Breast implants for a trans woman? Hormone therapy? Genital reconfiguration? Or just any procedure at all designed to alleviate the gender incongruence a transgender person experiences?
I think his post greatly overstates both the oppositionof the medical community and the effect of the news media in the use of the lobotomy. The inventor of the lobotomy, 13 years after his first procedure in 1936, received the Nobel Prize im Medicine in 1949 for his invention of the lobotomy. So clearly this wasnt considered at the time some rogue mad scientist conducting terrible experiments on unsuspecting people. There is a lot more to this story, which indeed had some tragic endings.
But this topic is open for discussion in this forum. If someone is called a bigot or other personal attacks we will deal with that. But that is a separate issue.
I think he means the broader point that both lobotomies and transition surgery are irreversible.
chillrob and corpus are correct
browser, if you read that paper - which i assure you is not bigoted nor transphobic in the slightest - i think it'd be more productive because the stuff you mention is directly addressed in it as the paper is literally entirely focused on the ever present division within the medical community and how it ebbed and flowed due to plausible influence from mainstream media
at no point whatsoever were lobotomies universally accepted (i was shocked to learn that) and the nobel prize award to the people behind it came amidst a lot of contemporary controversy and in fact somewhat revived it as it had already been dying out but then people read it got a nobel prize and that brought on fresh interest
its a brief paper and a rarity in that its legible despite written by academics
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an Indiana public school district's request to defend a policy that restricted bathroom access by sex.
The justices declined to hear an appeal by the Metropolitan School District of Martinsville after a lower court ruled that a middle school's policy, which barred transgender students from using facilities like bathrooms or locker rooms that align with their self-professed gender identity, violated students' constitutional rights and ran afoul of federal anti-discrimination law.
Attorneys for the school district had asked the court to "preserve the autonomy of school boards to make decisions."
A 2023 ruling by the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a student, identified in court papers as "A.C.," is protected under a law called Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in education, and by the Constitution's 14th Amendment requirement that people be protected equally under the law.
So Maine is passing a bill to allow kids to transition without parents consent
Learn to read.
Thanks for the comment I have limited reading skills based on my conservatism but many do think starting hormone therapy is the first process in transitioning .And yes its 16,17 year olds but next it will be 14-15 year olds and ..........
It amazes me its always the ones on the left who resort to the insults and name calling
You're horrible posting and you're intentional misuse of language must have some consequences.
Your deliberately misrepresenting the article. The article says this:
A bill that could allow transgender minors to begin hormone therapy without a parent's permission has received initial approval in the Legislature.
The bill would allow a doctor to prescribe non-surgical interventions, such as gender-affirming hormone therapies like estrogen and testosterone, to 16- and 17-year-olds who have been diagnosed with what's known as "gender dysphoria." And that treatment could happen without parental consent if the minor says their parent or guardian has refused to go along with the request and a health care professional determines that the young person is being harmed by not receiving treatment for gender dysphoria
You're horrible posting and you're intentional misuse of language must have some consequences.
Your deliberately misrepresenting the article. The article says this:
A bill that could allow transgender minors to begin hormone therapy without a parent's permission has received initial approval in the Legislature.
The bill would allow a doctor to prescribe non-surgical interventions, such as gender-affirming hormone therapies like estrogen an
It still allows for a child to make life altering decision on their bodies which is disgusting the first phase in transitioning . You know as well as I do they will go to the next step and bring in surgery
Try engaging in discussion instead of insulting the person or just put me on ignore
It still allows for a child to make life altering decision on their bodies which is disgusting the first phase in transitioning . You know as well as I do they will go to the next step and bring in surgery
Try engaging in discussion instead of insulting the person or just put me on ignore
Try engaging in facts and stop spreading your bs everywhere. I suppose you also object to teens electing hormone treatment to prevent pregnancy without parental consent as disgusting.
I thought the first phase of transitioning was puberty blockers given to kids that can't even dress themselves? Now the first step is hormone treatment after or at the end of a teens puberty.
Second, you baselessly claim that the age and actual allowed treatments are slippery slopes, as well as claim the treatments are life altering instead of temporary.
Next you will be back to your mutilation and castration inflammatory language and Miss America's penis rhetoric.
Try engaging in facts and stop spreading your bs everywhere. I suppose you also object to teens electing hormone treatment to prevent pregnancy without parental consent as disgusting.
I thought the first phase of transitioning was puberty blockers given to kids that can't even dress themselves? Now the first step is hormone treatment after or at the end of a teens puberty.
Second, you baselessly claim that the age and actual allowed treatm
Thank you for educating me on my lack of information on what it allows and doesn't
If you would educate yourself before you post on a subject we could stop having these interactions.
Instead, you continue to do you and lie about what the article says as if no one would read it.
